Does disease management improve clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and economic effects of disease management in patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for English-language articles from 1987 to 2001. Articles were included if they used a systematic approach to care and evaluated patients with chronic disease, reported objective measurements of the processes or outcomes of care, and employed acceptable experimental or quasi-experimental study designs as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group. RESULTS: Two reviewers evaluated 16,917 titles and identified 102 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Identified studies represented 11 chronic conditions: depression, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, coronary artery disease, asthma, heart failure, back pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Disease management programs for patients with depression had the highest percentage of comparisons (48% [41/86]) showing substantial improvements in patient care, whereas programs for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (9% [2/22]) or chronic pain (8% [1/12]) appeared to be the least effective. Of the outcomes more frequently studied, disease management appeared to improve patient satisfaction (71% [12/17]), patient adherence (47% [17/36]), and disease control (45% [33/74]) most commonly and cost-related outcomes least frequently (11% to 16%). CONCLUSION: Disease management programs were associated with marked improvements in many different processes and outcomes of care. Few studies demonstrated a notable reduction in costs. Further research is needed to understand how disease management can most effectively improve the quality and cost of care for patients with chronic diseases.

Physician attitudes toward strategies to promote the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: [corrected] Promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice has been advocated as one approach to improving healthcare quality and reducing medical errors. Data describing the effectiveness of different strategies to achieve this goal in real-world settings are limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of selected interventions on the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of a random sample of physicians selected from the American Medical Association's Physician Master File. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the perceived effectiveness of 7 strategies (represented by 27 individual interventions) and 5 general approaches for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice in 1100 practicing physicians. Respondent exposure to interventions was also determined. Regression analyses were performed to identify factors that affected effectiveness ratings. Analysis of variance was used to test the hypothesis of equal mean scores across different comparison groups. RESULTS: Of 1,100 surveys mailed, 63 (5.7%) were excluded and 431 were completed (response rate = 41.6%). Mean +/- SD effectiveness scores for the 27 individual interventions on a 5-point Likert scale ranged from 2.0 +/- 0.9 (literature received from insurance companies and managed care organizations) to 4.2 +/- 0.8 (one-on-one communication with respected colleagues). Ranges for the 7 strategies were 2.6 +/- 1.0 (patient-mediated interventions) to 3.6 +/- 0.9 (educational meetings) and for the 5 general approaches were 1.98 +/- 0.9 (administrative interventions) to 3.3 +/- 0.8 (provider education). The hypothesis of equal mean effectiveness scores was rejected for all comparisons (P < .001). Frequency of exposure was the only variable to predict effectiveness (P < .001 for all regression models). CONCLUSION: From the perspective of practicing physicians, the frequency of exposure to strategies for promoting the adoption of medical evidence into clinical practice strongly affects their perceived effectiveness.

Transforming the public health information infrastructure.

The public health information infrastructure is undergoing a transformation that is enabled by changes in health care informatics. The implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, the patient medical record information standards, and National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) recommendations by the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics provide the basis for improved data reporting to public health agencies. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should provide leadership and resources for this transformation. Newly available federal resources will have the greatest effect on improving the information infrastructure if there is a strong commitment to developing and implementing public health data standards that build upon the National Electronic Disease Surveillance System.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development. METHODS: We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system. RESULTS: Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.